The arguments of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s Defense Office, voiced on Friday by office chief Francois Roux and his deputy, lawyer Alia Aoun, intersected with the information published Thursday by Naharnet about the presence of disputes among the defense counsels on how to deal with the STL.
The defense’s remarks were voiced during the first session held by The Trial Chamber to hear arguments from the Prosecution and the Defense Office about initiating in absentia proceedings.
Despite Roux denying during the hearing “what some media outlets have published about disputes among the counsels,” his insistence on the need to distinguish between the court’s legitimacy and the legitimacy of the proceedings it might endorse – including in absentia trials – came to verify the presence of conflicting approaches, between him and the foreign counsels on the one side, and between him and the Lebanese counsels on the other.
The Lebanese counsels have adopted judge Salim Jreissati’s viewpoint, which argues that the STL is illegitimate and unconstitutional.
As Jreissati seeks to propagate his point of view that the tribunal’s establishment was illegitimate, it was noteworthy during today’s hearing that Roux -- in absence of the 8 defense counsels he had appointed to represent the 4 accused -- called on the tribunal’s judges to “correct” some rulings ordered by the pre-trial judge at the request of Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare.
Among the most prominent “corrections” requested by Roux was the lifting, or the suspension, of the arrest warrants, which would allow the accused to appear in court without fearing arrest and to testify via closed circuit television from STL’s offices in Lebanon.
“We should focus on the purpose or the role of the tribunal. Do we want to try them or arrest these individuals?” Roux wondered.
“The defense office consequently submits that the chamber should suspend or lift the arrest warrants issued against the accused in that this prevents them from taking all reasonable measures and it consequently also infringes in their basic rights as stipulated by the STL Rules of Evidence and Procedure,” he stressed.
The Defense Office concluded that it rejects the initiation of in absentia trials given that they contradict with the right of the accused to defend themselves amid the presence of arrest warrants that deny them freedom of movement.
"How can we even consider that the accused would want to go and consult their lawyers in their chambers in Beirut?" Roux asked.
Meanwhile, it was remarkable that the arguments of Roux and his deputy Alia Aoun -- which suggested that in absentia trials are not lawful under the Anglo-Saxon legal system – were met with a harsh response from Trial Chamber Judge David Re, who called on Aoun to review her information concerning in absentia trials during her future arguments before the court.
Re noted that such type of trials was permissible under the Anglo-Saxon legal system, not only in major felonies and terrorist crimes, but also in ordinary crimes.
Re also hit back at Roux, who based his request for lifting the arrest warrants on a precedent that took place in The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
He asked Roux to provide him with a single example from around the world about terrorist crimes cases in which no arrest warrants were issued for the accused.
No comments:
Post a Comment